Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1irS7k-0003kT-FJ for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 19:45:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1irS7j-0003ia-Ao for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 19:45:11 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1irS7j-0003iR-0G for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 19:45:11 +0000 Received: from tamriel.snowman.net ([2001:470:e38f::11]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1irS7b-00053s-EN for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 19:45:09 +0000 Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 09A6E5F799; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 14:45:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 14:45:02 -0500 From: Stephen Frost To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Laurenz Albe , rirans@comcast.net, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles Message-ID: <20200114194502.GX3195@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <157742545062.1149.11052653770497832538@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <20191227171654.GA2992@momjian.us> <8c2f4f1b90c993c8c6338b978a78a9ebbcd1c934.camel@cybertec.at> <20200114181331.GB10430@momjian.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GFwhCftrcsyczXat" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200114181331.GB10430@momjian.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --GFwhCftrcsyczXat Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings, * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:46:31AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-12-27 at 12:16 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 05:44:10AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > >=20 > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/default-roles.html > > > > Description: > > > >=20 > > > > The title is wrong. The roles are not defaults; they are predefin= ed and > > > > privileged. The title suggests that a user should expect to be as= signed > > > > these roles. "21.5 Sub-Administrator Roles" would be accurate--i= mproving > > > > clarity over all and removing any need to explain why postgres is = not in > > > > this list of roles. > > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Good points. I have developed the attached documentation patch which > > > includes your ideas. > >=20 > > +1 > >=20 > > I think that "predefined role" is better than "default role". >=20 > Thanks, patch applied through 9.6. Erm, I didn't agree with this and pointed to reasons why it was based, for starters, on a misunderstanding and further wasn't a particularly good idea anyway. I'm not happy that it was committed, and to have been back-patched strikes me as even worse. What about existing links to things like: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/default-roles.html which will now be broken, like from here?: https://paquier.xyz/postgresql-2/postgres-11-new-system-roles/ Or that the documentation wasn't properly updated to reflect this change as a simple "git grep 'default role'" would have shown? There's at least 5 references still to 'default role' in the documentation after this commit. Not to mention that, with this patch, we now have confusion between things like 'DEFAULT_ROLE_WRITE_SERVER_FILES' in the code vs. the documentation. In short, I don't agree with this change, which strikes me as looking largely like it's trying to make PG look more like Oracle than anything else, but if we're going to move in this direction we should only be doing so in master and we should be much more careful making sure that the documentation, at least, is updated and consistent and that appropriate comments are made to the code to explain that DEFAULT_ROLE in the code is referring to "predefined roles" (or we should change the code, though I can understand if there's argument that doing so would create unnecessary back-patching hazards.. though there isn't all *that* much code, so I could go either way on that myself). Thanks, Stephen --GFwhCftrcsyczXat Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJeHho+AAoJEO1sijiDR2RV2PUP/jRI6UHwyqdvEXkPMMfh3D/a B9OeRz61jb0J056KAeRsDhCo+SQanvzF3bJvkq43M/uRFmeo84CJ8VAgokcBpWSt DFZ5NYXECApLOiNWwnlNE7APlr0WekR5p13wjzmR8mmnmR+JtQq6W5/RnVNtvAIr PelBmSVmUDU8r2ApPKZJ7C87VColpIncPJ9xiPquzgyO7IP1aP78OMTHZL1V0fWr dfC9LdZGSjMv3aPcQCHatShynBx2tx0d9saCpA4e4R5PeseULbecsVcMWnniulZ0 6LQFAh2UOxCsJ70nCxCTaELc0H2GG+r+t8Boyi8NZpVlQK42qmlbgJb++E0E5SDs Urj64SLMN8wCOL7xhcIwWTHbql/BF3yT2NQCy0QaP1bWXUatSa3JNS3gx5WCEC3H FDU0HsDYxOnFks8TfAiClrThyQ0lKHGbCKFx1f8nwEqenx4lo6SJryax81SztuPn ln72dZpVYiNYBEC/YmmzstB4sonQayixtSFVTKTg9K9wo0ddrFNFLNCOFMImCIZy kJe8sswBUL/MgFD7K/E53avD/tgODS18zKr1TgEkcIuK+/u4580PFiBx+0d8rtji DAGVYqWsFqckiLLhcBSNBm6F8bgiIOhl/FrBNx2HTYTUF3ZppRaEcoVmOmPg5buy g0J1+gwkVllUzTPAAmnu =cBxA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GFwhCftrcsyczXat--